Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 15th Jul 2008 17:45 UTC, submitted by Thom_Holwerda
Apple has filed a suit (more details) on July 3rd against Psystar in the northern district of California. Psystar dubbed its cheap Mac Clone as Open Computer and started shipping them around April of this year.
Thread beginning with comment 323090
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by apoclypse on Wed 16th Jul 2008 16:49
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
Member since:2007-02-17
How is it civil disobedience to steal someone else's hard work and try to make cash out of it. Don't make them into a martyr, they are far from it. The author of the OSX86 project clearly denounced the project as he didn't intend his work to be used commercially, yet Psystar went ahead and did it anyway. Civil disobedience my ass, they are plain crooks.
RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Jul 2008 16:59
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
Member since:2005-06-29
How is it civil disobedience to steal someone else's hard work and try to make cash out of it.
They're not stealing anything. PsyStar s buying legal copies of OS X, and then re-sells those to its customers. This is perfectly legal, and doesn't have ANYthing to do with stealing. For every PsyStar Leopard clone box sold, Apple gets the license money.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-09-21
In most cases, I would say that is true. As for PsyStar itself, their actions may be construed as an act of civil disobedience. This was not under the table stuff. It was done in plain view. Unfortunately, there was monetary gain. But it could be argued that Apple would not have launced a credible lawsuit based upon the EULA otherwise.
Some people have this misconception that businesses are democratic, and that buying stuff is a means of giving them a vote. This is completely untrue, which is one reason why transactions with businesses are subject to a lot of regulation.
Some of those regulations concern the ownership of property. This entails rights which pretty much every EULA argues that you do not have. The sad fact is, too much of our computer use is governed by EULAs. Even open source software presents an EULA to the user, even though those are much more balanced than their commercial counterparts.
So if someone wants to take on a company like Apple to try to invalidate, or at least limit the use of, EULAs, I congratulate them. And I sincerely hope that is what Psystar was trying to do when coming out in such a public manner.